Movies-TV

Unbearably Moving

The movie and book are almost two completely different works of art.

The book - a philosophical and at times clinical look at relationships - Kundera's commentaries distancing you from the characters and storyline.

The movie on the other hand draws you in from the very start - falling in love w/ Tereza and Tomas - they become a part of you - it just draws me in over and over again. It's amazing that in Tomas' infidelity and impureness - such a pure and beautiful relationship springs.

I wish I could get more people to give this movie a viewing. Every time I watch it, it touches my life in a way so few movies do.

WAR AND PIECES

Daniel Day Lewis as a Prague doctor, hoping for a little afternoon pleasure while on a medical trip, hits upon and scores with Juliette Binoche, but drives off, rudely, in his sports car, when his afternoon delight reveals she lives with her mother. End of story, until she shows up at his door in Prague to continue the conversation. Great opening, but soon I couldn't help but wonder why these two oddball Berlin Wall era ambiguous revolutionaries are so madly in love with each other. We are told that repeatedly, and a marriage union locks the deal, but they seem about as chemically inclined towards one another as a bland peanut butter and jelly sandwich; there for the sake of being. But they are, apparently, the Scarlet and Rhett of the fall of The Soviet Empire, helplessly involved in a Cold War deadlock with Russians who are revealed as typically sitting at a long table in a bar, kicking back vodkas, and behaving like Boris and Natasha from The Bullwinkle cartoons. Come on, really? Lena Olin's nude exhibition with a tophat was a pretentious symbol of democratic freedom, and the potboiler romance and revolution is forever on a low simmer, when it needs to be boiling over. If the film would have stopped when Juliette Binoche shows up unexpectedly at Daniel Day Lewis's door, and they made wild rebellious graphic sex defying all conventions for the duration of the film, (no top hats please, that is SO Al Pacino 'Cruising'), this cold war wouldn't have been so frigid.

A lot to like...

This film has so many great qualities it's hard to believe that anyone who would want to see it could walk away disappointed. I can certainly appreciate that fans of the novel may be let down because the film is quite different than the novel. However, all of the meaning is there. Seldomly does a film ever fulfill the intentions of the book it is based on. But with this film, it goes beyond the book's intention by throwing in a lighter context. The book is excellent, and I did read it before seeing the film. There are so many qualities in the book I would have hated to see attempted on screen. There is so much of what's explained in the book that can be easily implied in the film. I'm not saying you have to be familiar with the book to understand the movie. That is what is so amazing about the screen adaption. The characters are so vivid thanks to the incredible performances by the entire cast. If anything, it's like watching a novel come to life. The cinematography is almost half the reason why this film is so bold, thanks to Nykvist. As with any great film, the musical selections were all carefully picked and appropriate. This is quite an underrated gem.

Wonderful Cinematography

It is one of the most memorable movies I have seen in the last 10 years. It is not a classic, nor a "great" movie, but I truly enjoyed it. Superb acting and visually stunning.

Fine Double Feature With Kaufman's Other Classic!

First of all, I cannot believe the primary user review for this film is Leo Whatshisnam. I may have had a similar opinion of the film when I was a child of 15 - unware of love and loss. But this film is a beautiful companion to 'Henry and June'. (which most of my friends yawned through as well, not being seasoned men of love, lust and women in general.) Sure, you can take your female companions to this film and they will enjoy the depth of emotion involved (as well as being a great literary translation), but if you're a man who loves football and potatoe chips, take your significant other to 'The Waterboy' instead.

A classic, for those who love art, romance, and a good story

What is light to some, is heavy to others. Tomas loves sex, it is his sport, his relaxation. This is a wonderfully romantic film. The characters are people you can relate to, the story is believable. How everything is resolved in the end is sublime, a touching and fitting finale to a beautiful film. If you are a hopeless romantic, and have a taste for European artsy films, this is for you. This film is so good, I am tempted to give it a perfect score 9/10.

Only what is heavy has value

Imagine you're at the theater attending a live performance, a truly living performance in which both axioms and mythological truths are entered into and shared by actors and audience alike. Now suppose that the backdrop for all the action is dark, oppressive, and heavy, while all that transpires before it is light, glib, and ineffectual. Now consider that, through the course of the play, all that is bouncy and trivial becomes overwhelmed and absorbed by the gravity of the background, like light being sucked into the gravity of a black hole, so that what was once meaningless and unimportant and even silly becomes increasingly momentous and important and valuable as the play progresses. If you can see this outline in your mind's eye, you have a good idea about The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera's novel by the same name brought to life as a movie. The film, like the novel, declares one thing: `only necessity is heavy, and only what is heavy has value.' I so love this idea, this earth shattering insight: it effortlessly capsizes our Postmodern zeitgeist in one innocuous little phrase. And the film expresses it beautifully. Set in the Prague Spring of 1968, when the Soviets put down Dubcek's `Socialism with a Human Face,' the weight of these events draws the lives of a Czech doctor, his wife, and his lovers, into its orbit. And instead of crushing them, as one might assume, it becomes the fire that purifies gold.
Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis), for example, had previously written a treatise on Oedipus, a witty exercise in sophistry aimed at the Communist regime as a provocative analogy, nothing more. But as the essay becomes an object of obsession to the Communists, we see Kundera's definition of vertigo come into play. It is not the fear of falling, but the soul's defense against the desire to fall. Tomas wanted to fall. Why? Watch the movie, and find out for yourself.

Kubrickian Kundera from Kaufman

Milan Kundera's masterwork is one of the most profound, powerful and perspicacious work of literary fiction of all-time. However, as one either already knows or soon discovers: a novel and a film are completely different media.Kaufman's vision is elegant, eloquent and enigmatic. This is necessary to translate the directness and deepness of Kundera's prose. The film unable to delve into the innermost feelings and proclivities of its characters tries to say more by saying less. The movie takes the essence and uses powerful, calculated imagery as its driving motor. This is how this strongly resembles the late Stanley Kubrick's work: meticulous, hard on the actors and often also demanding on the viewers.Kundera is heard throughout by having some of its most essential prose and ideas integrated into the dialog now and then, but as you've probably guessed, the film cannot capture the sublime subtleties and evocative expansions of the novel. Franz's and Sabina's "dictionary of incomprehension" is only hinted at, while Tomas' son is nonexistent and Tereza's turning moment at the mountain foregone. The focus is highly on the sensuality and, primate, playful to intimate, infidelity. This was a good choice as this dichotomy requires little words to be heard. However, when the characters do speak, the dialog dashes across the screen and dances in your head to be sure. The political overtone is also present with the departure and return to Prague being treated as almost opposite end of a colour spectrum. Kundera hypothesizes on how politics and nudity are one and the same, but Kaufman shows it with vivid imagery on both sides and emblematic parallelism.The acting and editing make it all work together although there are a few low points in both instances. The two female leads are pretty much incredible. The classic music is charming and appropriate. The writing and directing are on point and the philosophy and melancholy of Kundera finds an appropriate echo in this visceral art medium.With a slow beginning, the movie quickly builds momentum and the viewer hardly realizes its long running time. The character interactions and tensions, the stunning cinematography and succession of memorable scenes and dialog inspired greatly by the original work, make the viewer actually wish the movie would go on a little longer, whisper something more to its ear. Tomas sums it up by stating his general happiness despite his unforeseen and unwanted condition. After all life is light, you cannot take it too seriously.

Juliette Binoche is such a doll!

Saul Zaentz is my hero. I really enjoyed this film, even though Day-Lewis's "Transylvanian Count" accent grated on my nerves at times. Lena Olin is at her finest and Juliette Binoche proves once again that she can completely transform herself. She is not her character from Blue, (although she swims in that film as well), and she is not Hana from the English Patient. She is merely Thereza, a simple Czech girl. This movie is also worth seeing, for the effects used in the failed revolution scenes. I believe that Tomas and Thereza were added to actual archival footage of the uprising. It's a nice movie about the intricacies of relationships and how men and women relate to each other with a tumultuous Communist backdrop. Tomas could remain true to himself and not sign the retraction, but he never could stay true to his wife. "How heavy life is for me."

Favorable

I think this is one of the great art films of all time. It has the wondrous breadth of history like a Merchant-Ivory production yet without the slightly stodgy feel. This is a terrific achievement, probably one of the five best of the 80's, especially considering that the source material was considered unfilmable. This film has subtle, intelligent humor that hinges as much on the craft of the film as from any punch line. The historical and political undertones strengthen the plot and the ending us utterly haunting.

Long, pretentious, boring.

Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.

The film should have been named "Tereza"!

Who ever read the book cannot appreciate the way it was implemented here. OK, I agree, it is unfair to compare books to the film who rely on them. Nevertheless, In my opinion, the director lacked a little bit of imagination and just echoed the book, a big mistake I think. Tomas and the political tension in Prague is here the central character, but from my point of view there wouldn't be this book and thus this film without Tereza. She is THE story.I am not a director, but viewing the story from the young Tereza's angle, the unplanned child and maltreated but very ambitious young girl whose mother and step father are unable to give her the love and affection she needs. She flees their home in their village to live with Tomas, a surgeon from Prag she met two weeks ago in the pub were she used to work. Tomas turns out to have a weakness for women and though Teresa manages to achieve a good career as photograph, this situation poisons their relationship...

unbearable lightness - frivolity in the face of revolution

I feel i should write something because the previous review is very misleading and spiteful. I always find it bizarre when people write a review of a film and say "nothing much happened". Well, did you watch the film? A lot happened! The Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia for one thing! The previous reviewer calls the movie self-important. It is no more self-important than the review you wrote, sir. And if it is, I think that tends to happen naturally when a conglomeration of hugely talented filmmakers tackle epic material; it is gorgeously lensed by the greatest cinematographer of all time Sven Nykvist, the performances are peerless, the script is utterly compelling at all times, and the direction proved Kaufman to be a master. I don't find the film pretentious because i found the story so involving. I was watching characters not dry literary symbols. I personally believe something is pretentious only if you dont understand it. As for the cactus being a phallic symbol, it looks a phallus, so what? Whats your point? As for the title, my mother, who is Slavic and was living in Poland during the 1968 invasion, agrees that Teresa explains it best in the film: she can't bear to be light and frivolous while her people are being oppressed. I have seen few films that display the heart and warmth of this one. It is just as timely and compelling today as it was twelve years ago. The Criterion DVD has beautiful high resolution imagery and a great Janacek soundtrack. The commentary track is also enlightening to hear, as several key people involved in making the film speak candidly about what they were doing.

question

This is one of my all time favorite movies. One question. A previous reviewer said don't buy the DVD because it was missing scenes. Was he refering to the Criterion Collection version?

endearing, human.

As a long time resident of Eastern Europe (born there) my two cents have to be a praise for the excellent cultural localization of the movie, a praise for the humor and sensitivity of the portrayed situations and characters. Great.

A very poor adaptation

After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.

From Someone Who's Read the Book

I know it's not really fair to compare a book to a movie, and I've heard before that if you're interested in both you should always see the film first, that way you're not let down with the way it was adapted from the novel. But in this case, I read the novel first so it's impossible for me to not judge the film in that light.

I don't know whether to blame the casting or the acting/direction, but I wasn't happy with any of the main characters. Daniel Day Lewis, who I normally like, plays Tomas with a constant smirk on his face that makes him hard to take seriously. In the novel, he's an intellectual, but in the movie he seems like nothing more than a confused male who's obsessed with sex.


Juliette Binoche's Tereza seems like a caricature. In the book, she's a sad, somewhat innocent woman from a small Czech town. In the movie she's played like a typical French ingenue. She seems like she would fit better into Amelie than she does in Kundera's masterpiece.

Lena Olin's Sabina is not as bad, but she still seems to lack the sensuality or seriousness of the character in the novel.

Of course, there are many things that are left out from the book, and that is to be expected in any adaptation. The movie doesn't spend very much time on Sabina in Switzerland. The character of Franz is just glossed over, and the part about Tomas having a wife and son is completely left out, which may seem forgiveable, but in reading the book I thought the fact that Tomas had been in a failed marriage made his womanizing a little more understandable.

None of this is to say that the movie is without merit. There are some spectacular scenes and moments, and it's hard not to be touched at times. But it all just feels a little rushed, even in 3 hours. This could have easily been a mini-series and perhaps then the characters could have been developed properly and the viewer would get to know Tomas and Tereza. As it is, it's a good movie that in the end comes off feeling like a slightly less erotic version of "Last Tango in Paris."

Wonderful Direction

The direction of this moving just draws you into each of the characters so deeply that you are able to feel for each of them so strongly as individuals and not only as an ensemble. The scene between Lena Olin and Juliette Binoche when Lena is taking pictures of Juliette is so intimate and sensual, it is my most memorable scene in the movie and quite sexual without being bawdy!The intensity of love that each character has for the other is so moving. I found myself wanting to be a part of each scene as it all seemed so real. I can't say enough wonderful things about this movie. All these years later, I can visualize each moment on the screen as if I saw this movie yesterday. I recommend this movie to everyone I know, as both Lena and Juliette give such sensuous and real performances.

3 hours...of...infidelity

Sigh. Another boring Daniel Day Lewis film... I'm waiting. So far, I haven't seen a film he's done that hasn't boredme to sleep... I like Phil Kaufman's work a lot- in fact, the Kaufman directed "TheRight Stuff," and Kaufman written "Outlaw Josey Wales" are two ofmy all-time favorite films... BUT three hour epics about unfaithfulness is NOT my idea of goodentertainment. I'm sorry, I didn't care about these characters ortheir story. Even now, the morning after seeing the film, I'm having trouble remembering the final outcome for several of thecharacters. I liked this film in the same way I liked the English Patient- not atall.

This movie is not about love and desire !

I was deeply disappointed when i went through several viewer reviews. This movie is not about love and desire and etc as was commonly stated in most of the reviews. It is about BEING, EXISTANCE,CHOICES AND COINCIDENCES. This movie is based entirely upon the statement 'Einmal ist Keinmal'. The 'unbearable lightness of being' refers to the one and only one single opportunity of a human being to make choices and bear the consequences, since it is not possible to turn back the clock and make a different choice and see the consequences. It is also discussed in the movie, that it is coincidences that guide our lives rather than our evaluations of the situations and our actions(decisions) taken upon our evaluations.

This movie is the best movie i have seen in my whole life, therefore i could not keep silent against the fact that this marvellous piece of work has been misinterpreted by many and hence has been enjoyed to an extent far less than possible.

If you havent seen it yet....